Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-06-2020 Virtual Business Meeting 1 APPROVED 11/5/2020 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich, Vice Chair Renee Price, and Commissioners Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, and Earl McKee COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren, Interim Clerk to the Board Greg Wilder, and Assistant Deputy Clerk Allen Coleman (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and asked Commissioners to accept a roll call. The Board agreed by consensus. Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners conducted a Virtual Business Meeting on October 6, 2020. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment. • Written submittals by email • Speaking during the virtual meeting Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this agenda. (Pre-registration is required.) 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda NONE Chair Rich acknowledged the public charge. Arts Moment— No Arts Moment was available for this meeting. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Jared Cates said he lives in Efland, and is concerned about the potential rezoning of the Buc-cees development for a very large gas station. He said there are many residents who are 2 opposed to this development due to traffic, pollution, and quality of life. He said this project is profoundly unsuited to the site. The following comments were submitted via email to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC): Dear Orange County Board of County Commissioners, For the past 20+ years we have lived on what we call our Efland Estate. For us, we have a large tract of land (5 acres) and an elaborate home (3 bedrooms, 2 baths). We also have numerous bird species and various reptiles and amphibians, all of which we monitor as we participate in citizen science projects and educational events and activities. In our modest home on a piece of land limited because it does not perk (thank goodness), we have constructed two decades, times two, of love and concern for this land. A Buc-ees is not what we had in mind when we moved here and it is certainly not a development that we can support. Three short miles from our home, it will impact not only our lifestyle but the very lives of the plants and animals whose acreage we share. We strongly oppose this development in Efland and hope that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners agrees. Your Constituents, Catherine E. Matthews cmatthews(@uncq.edu, 919 593-0440 Timothy B. Spruill, tbspru(a_aol.com, 919 518-5489 Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Dorosin joined the meeting at 7:02 p.m. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Commissioner Bedford said she had no comments. Commissioner Greene said she is wearing purple in recognition of domestic violence awareness month. She brought attention to Racist Roots.org, which focuses on the racist history of the death penalty. Commissioner Price said it is possible that the 2020 Census is still open, and it appears that residents have until the end of the month. She encouraged all who had not yet completed the census to please do so. Commissioner Marcoplos said there are rumors of so called "poll watchers" to bother people at the polls. He asked if the local board of elections and law enforcement have a plan to address this possibility at Orange County sites, and petitioned staff to follow up. He asked if a report from the summer's policing and racial justice listening session is available. Commissioner Dorosin said the national election protection hotline is available for voters who have any questions at 1-866-OUR-VOTE. He said this is a national non-partisan voter helpline. He referred to Commissioner Marcoplos' comments, and said it is important not to assign police officers to voter locations. He said if there is a need to respond, law enforcement can do so, but should not be a presence otherwise, as it can lead to voter suppression/intimidation. Commissioner McKee had no comments. Commissioner Rich said she sent a resolution for the Board's review, which she will put forward at the 10/20/2020 meeting, asking North Carolina to no longer support the Hyde 3 Amendment. She said October is breast concern awareness month. She said the Health Department still encourages women to get mammograms done, despite COVID, as it can be done safely. Chair Rich said there was a Partners meeting today (formerly the MAC meeting), and these meetings will take place monthly. She said COVID numbers were up from 1.8% to 2% this week, and UNC was at 4.6% last week and now 5%. She said about 3,100 people are being tested a week, and contact traces are working hard. She said hospitals are not overwhelmed, but flu shots are critical, and she encouraged everyone to get flu shots. Chair Rich said emergency services is spotting Hurricane Delta, with 120 miles per hour winds. Chair Rich said the BOCC wants to extend sincere condolences to Chad Dorill's family (Appalachian State (ASU) Student who died last week of COVID). She said ASU established a hotline, and UNC has one as well. Chair Rich said traditionally at this meeting the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) chooses a Commissioners' Planning Retreat Committee. She said the BOCC can postpone the retreat until the spring, or not hold it at all. She asked if the BOCC wants to move forward on this retreat. Commissioner Price said she would be willing to serve on the committee and discuss details as time moves forward. Chair Rich said the only logistical issue is making sure the BOCC has time to vote on a calendar change, if necessary. Commissioner McKee said he would serve on this committee. He said he would like to wait until the second meeting in November, and make a decision then. Chair Rich said traditionally the retreat is one day, and 7 hours via Zoom would not be ideal. She said retreats are more beneficial in person. Commissioner Greene said she is interested in having a retreat, and would be happy with several Zoom sessions. She said Triangle J has done this. She said a retreat would allow the BOCC to revisit its goals from last year. She petitioned to hear back from Ashley Heger about last year's goal of tackling hunger. Chair Rich said Commissioner Price, Dorosin, and McKee would serve on the retreat planning committee. All three commissioners agreed to serve. Chair Rich said the committee could talk with the Clerk's office, and report back to the Board at a later date. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Domestic Violence Awareness Month Proclamation The Board considered voting to approve a proclamation recognizing October 2020 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Orange County. BACKGROUND: Domestic Violence is a pattern of control in an intimate relationship where one person uses coercion and violence to gain power and control over a partner. In 1989, the U.S. Congress first passed Public Law 101-112 designating October of that year as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and has adopted similar legislation each year thereafter. The goal has been to educate and make the public aware of domestic violence issues, support the victims of domestic violence, and to connect advocates across the nation who are working to end domestic violence. 4 The Board of Commissioners is asked to proclaim October 2020 as "Domestic Violence Awareness Month" in Orange County to support victims of domestic violence, to educate residents, and support those working to end domestic violence. Chair Rich introduced Valerie Sauer, Director of Community Education at the Compass Center in Chapel Hill, who read the resolution. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH 2O20 WHEREAS, domestic violence is a pattern of coercion and control in an intimate partner relationship where one person uses violence to gain power and control over their partner; and WHEREAS, domestic violence includes not only physical, but also mental abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, isolation and sexual abuse; and WHEREAS, individuals of all backgrounds, regardless of race, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation can experience abuse by an intimate partner; and WHEREAS, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, on average nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men; and WHEREAS, on a typical day there are 20,000 phone calls placed to domestic violence hotlines nationwide according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence; and WHEREAS, in North Carolina, according to the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, at least 57 individuals were murdered as a result of domestic violence in 2019; and WHEREAS, Compass Center for Women and Families, the state-designated domestic violence service provider for Orange County, served over 1,400 survivors of domestic violence through their 24-hour hotline, support groups, court advocacy, crisis counseling, Latinx services, and other services last year; and WHEREAS, Compass Center has launched Safe Homes, New Lives - an innovative and compassionate new housing strategy that empowers victims of domestic violence, provides safety for them and their children, and keeps them in their community by providing scattered housing across Orange County to shelter victims and their families for up to 3 months; and WHEREAS, prevention strategies involve collaborations by multiple partners to promote social norms, policies, and laws that support gender equity and foster intimate partnerships based on mutual respect, equality, and trust; Now, therefore, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, do hereby proclaim this time to be: "Domestic Violence Awareness Month 2020" 5 and encourage the residents of Orange County to observe this time in ways appropriate to its importance and significance. Proclaimed this the 6th day of October 2020. Penny Rich, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the Proclamation designating October 2020 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Orange County, and authorize the Board Chair to sign the Proclamation. Commissioner Price said this petition did not go through the traditional agenda review process, but she said the topic is important to the BOCC, and she hopes all will support it. Chair Rich asked if the word "citizens" can be amended to "residents" to include everyone. Valerie Sauer said this change is acceptable. Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price accepted the amendment. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Public Hearing on the 2021 Reappraisal Proposed Schedules of Rules, Standards and Values The Board held a public hearing on the 2021 Reappraisal Proposed Schedules of Rules, Standards and Values. BACKGROUND: As required by North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) 105-317, the proposed Schedules of Values (SOV) to be used in conducting the 2021 reappraisal were submitted to the Board of County Commissioners on September 15, 2020. At that time, a public hearing was set for October 6, 2020, and notice was advertised in the News of Orange, Chapel Hill News and Durham Herald on September 16, 2020. The proposed Schedules have been available for public inspection in the Orange County Tax Office, Orange County Clerk to the Board's Office, and on the Orange County Tax Office website (available at https://www.orangecountync.gov/878/Revaluation) since September 15, 2020. The public hearing is the second step in a three- step process to adopt the Schedules that will be used in conducting the 2021 reappraisal. The Board will be asked to adopt the Schedules at its November 5, 2020 regular meeting. Following adoption, the Schedules will be appealable to the State Property Tax Commission for thirty (30) days. The timeline for the 2021 Reappraisal Schedule of Values adoption process is as follows: • September 15, 2020: Submission to Orange County Board of Commissioners • September 16, 2020: Advertise in newspapers • October 6, 2020: Public hearing on SOV • November 5, 2020: Adoption of SOV • November 6, 2020: Publish 1st notice of adoption 6 • November 13, 2020: Publish 2nd notice of adoption • November 20, 2020: Publish 3rd notice of adoption • November 27, 2020: Publish 4th notice of adoption • December 5, 2020: Last day for taxpayer to appeal the SOV Nancy Freeman, Tax Administrator, made the following PowerPoint presentation: STANDARDS2021 REAPPRAISAL SCHEDULE OF What is a Reappraisal? ❑The process of updating real property tax assessments for market value and present-use value ❑Appraisal of all properties in Orange County as of a single date ❑Primary goal is to equalize tax base ❑Effective date for Orange County's upcoming reappraisal is January 1,2021 Where We Have Been o Field reviews began mid-2019 o Launched two interactive websites in July 2019 to assist owners ew their property values o Property Record Card o Camper o Data Validation Form mailed February 2020 0 41,600 mailed o Received approximately 4,300 responses o Revaluation Video available on our website o Revaluation Insert with 2020 Bills Where We Are ❑Majority of land pricing has been completed ❑Mostly complete with verifying individual property characteristics and data a Per data provided by property owners on Data Validation Forms ❑Beginning"Neighborhood Reviews" a Current sales reports for statistics,edits as necessary a Before and after report for quality control o Commercial properties are being appraised by outside commercial appraisal company 7 Where We Are Going 0 Schedules of Values submission September 15,2020 and corresponding adoption timeline o Final revaluation presentation January 2021 a Unique challenges of this revaluation ❑Notices of new value mailed mid March 2021 ❑Deadline for informal appeals April 30,2021 ❑ Board of Equalization and Review to convene May 3,2021 Where We Are Going Continued ❑Post-revaluation customer service,reporting a Extended informal appeals process a Collaborative approach to appeals a Pooling resources with other counties performing 2021 revaluation The Schedules of Values (SOV) ❑Tax Assessor must submit SOV to the Board of County Commissioners(BOCC) ❑"Upon receipt',the BOCC shall publish a statement that such has been submitted and time/place of public hearing on SOV ❑52-day minimum for full adoption of SOV What is the Schedules of Values? ❑4-year business plan ❑An appraisal"toolbox" ❑Explains methodology ❑Shows appraisal system contents,i.e.calculation tables,codes,etc. ❑Links to applicable case law ❑Provides Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(USPAP) ❑Does not provide values for specific properties 8 The Adoption Process IIII� -September 15,2020:Submission of Schedules of Values to Board of County Commissioners September 16,2020:Advertising notice published in News of Orange,Chapel Hill News&Durham Herald October 6,2020:Public hearing November 5,2020:Adoption of Schedules November 6,2020:1"advertising notice November 13 2020:2nd advertising notice November 20,2020.3'd odvertising notice November 27,2020:4" dvertising notice December 5,2020:Last day for taxpayer appeal For More Information llll� -Contact the Orange County Tax Office: 919-245-2100 reval@orangecountync.gov r Visit the revaluation section of our website http://www.orangecountync.gov/tax/ A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee to open the public hearing. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close the public hearing. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS John Roberts reminded the BOCC that there must be a 24-hour written comment period after a virtual public hearing, and comments can be sent to reval(a)-orangecountync.gov or ocbocc(aD-orangecountync.gov Chair Rich asked if a formal vote is needed. John Roberts said no, that it just needs to be announced. Commissioner Price said she received emails regarding a revaluation during a pandemic, and asked staff to explain that there will be little to no financial harm by doing this is 2021. Nancy Freeman said yes. 9 b. Second Public Hearing on CDBG-CV Grant Application for Emergency Housing Assistance The Board held a public hearing on the draft application from Orange County for Community Development Block Grant— Coronavirus (CDBG-CV)funds from the NC Department of Commerce. In addition, the Board considered: • Authorizing the County to submit an application for CDBG funds • Authorizing the Chair to sign a resolution approving Orange County to apply for CDBG- CV funds. BACKGROUND: On August 25, 2020, Governor Roy Cooper announced the availability of$28 million from federal Community Development Block Grant— Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) funding to be disbursed to support rental and utility payments and prevent evictions for those with a demonstrated need (see Attachment 1). The funding will be distributed to eligible community agencies around the state that will work directly with North Carolinians on an application and disbursement process. Orange County intends to apply for the CDBG-CV funds to be used with the County's existing Emergency Housing Assistance fund, which provides financial assistance to help Orange County residents with low incomes secure and maintain stable housing (see Attachment 2). Assistance is available to households in Orange County that earn no more than 60% of the area median income, have an urgent need for housing assistance, and do not have adequate savings to cover the cost of their housing need. Before submitting an application, Orange County must hold two (2) public hearings to obtain citizens' comments. The first public hearing was held at the beginning of the application process. The second public hearing —the hearing being held today— must be held after theapplication is drafted but prior to its submission. The draft application is available in Attachment 4, and online at http://orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12902/. The Board of Commissioners must also authorize the County to submit an application for CDBG-CV funds through a resolution (see Attachment 3). All public comments received during the public hearing today, the prior public hearing, and throughout the entire public comment period will be considered and incorporated into the County's final application. Erika Brandt, Housing and Community Development Program Manager, made the following PowerPoint presentation: ORANGECOUNTY QCHCD NUB']'H C'A_UNA exnrtcwrtrtwwixcrtmrtirurtmxertuxrtr NC CDBG-CV Application fo- E—g—y Housing Assistance Board of Cammissl oners 0 ct aber 5.m6 10 n\/FR\/IFW • NC CDBG-CV • Emergency Housing Assistance(EHA) • Public Comments NC CnRG-C'V The NC Department of Commerce announced on August 25'h that federal CDBG-CV funds would be made available for local governments,with priority on rent,utility,and mortgage assistance programs • Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development intends to apply for the maximum amount of funds($900,000)to feed into the existing Emergency Housing Assistance program • Applications for NC CDBG-CV funds opened September 1"%but in order to apply,localities must first hold two(2)public hearings • The first public hearing was held September 15'h and this is the second EMERGENCY HCIIISINIG ASSISTANCE • EHA was originally created bythe BOCC in 2018 as part of the pilot Risk Mitigation and Housing Displacement Fund • Provide emergency financial assistance for housing-related costs to help low-income households secure and/or maintain stable housing • Eligible expenses include rent/ •W.w•«......�- utility payments and arrears, security deposits,etc. • Since March,EHA has drastically = scaled up and streamlined in response to COVID-19 EMERGENCY HollSING ASSISTANCE PIIRI IC coKAKAFNITS • Comments will be heard now,or may be submitted in writing or by telephone to: Erika Brandt,Housing and Community Development Manager (919)245-4331 ebrandt@orangecou ntyc.gov • All comments will receive a written response and will be incorporated into the application for NC CDBG-CV 11 RES-2020-058 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ORANGE COUNTY APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FOR THE EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND WHEREAS, the Orange County Emergency Housing Assistance fund, formerly called the Housing Stabilization Fund, was established by the Orange County Board of Commissioners in 2018 as part of the Risk Mitigation and Housing Displacement Fund in order to provide emergency financial assistance to low-income residents of the County to help secure and maintain stable housing; and, WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has previously indicated its desire to increase funding to the Emergency Housing Assistance fund in order to stabilize County residents and the local housing market in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic; and, WHEREAS, the Commissioners have held two public hearings concerning the proposed application for Community Development Block Grant funding to benefit the County's Emergency Housing Assistance fund; and, WHEREAS, the Commissioners wish the County to pursue a formal application for Community Development Block Grant funding to benefit the Emergency Housing Assistance fund; and have invested monies in the amount of eight hundred eighty thousand dollars ($880,000) from the County's Coronavirus Relief Fund allocation into the project as committed to in the application. WHEREAS, the Commissioners certify that the County will meet all federal regulatory and statutory requirements of the State of North Carolina Community Development Block Grant Program, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that Orange County is authorized to submit a formal application on behalf of Orange County to the North Carolina Department of Commerce for approval of a Community Development Block Grant to benefit the Emergency Housing Assistance fund. Adopted this the 6th day of October, 2020 in Orange County, North Carolina. Penny Rich, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners ATTEST: Clerk to the Board A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner McKee to open the public hearing. Roll call ensued 12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENT: NONE Commissioner Dorosin asked if any thought has been given to those who do not have access to the Internet in order to apply. He asked if these funds are being publicized. He asked if the reduction in evictions is due to a moratorium on evictions, as opposed to actual progress. Erika Brandt said those without Internet access can apply through the County's coordinated entry system, which is being done by phone via the housing helpline. She said hard copies are available at housing offices, with drop boxes available to return. She said COVID has made this process trickier. She said the Department is also working with many community partners to get the word out and help people complete applications. Commissioner Dorosin said that is encouraging, and he suggested using churches as another network to reach people. He asked if Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) had been contacted as a possible partner. Erika Brandt said OWASA, Hillsborough Water System and Duke Energy are partners, but reaching out to churches is a great idea. She said the moratorium is a legitimate factor in the reduction of evictions, and staff is looking into further analysis. Chair Rich said housing staff has also been in contact with Delores Bailey at EmPOWERment, who is being very helpful in getting the word out. A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to close the public hearing. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS John Roberts said written comments can be submitted for 24 hours to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov. A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Price to: • Authorize the Department of Housing and Community Development to submit an application for CDBG-CV funds on behalf of the County • Authorize the Chair to sign the resolution approving Orange County to apply for CDBG funds Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Rich said if a public comment comes in during the written public comment period, the Board would revisit this vote. 6. Regular Agenda The public comment period for items: 6-a, 6-b, 6-c, closed at 9:00 a.m. on September 24, 2020, and the BOCC will not accept any additional comment for these items. 13 a. Proposed Amendments to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) The Board considered voting to approve a resolution on a County-initiated request amending the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan, and the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, said the order of the planning items this evening is typical, especially when considering changes to land use plans and zoning in the same geographies, in whole or part. He said this maintains consistency. He said the two rezoning items do include such a statement of consistency. He said this practice was reversed at September meetings, to allow the public the opportunity to speak. He said the public hearing on RTLP was spread across two meetings to accommodate public comment. He said the land use amendments this evening are not for RTLP, but rather an extension of a process started in 2017. He said the Planning Board, staff, and County Manager recommend approval of RTLP, but approving the land use plans does not guarantee the approval of RTLP. He said if the BOCC chooses not to approve the land use plans, it should do so because it no longer supports the existing plan, rather than being opposed to RTLP. He reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have been discussing potential expansion of the Hillsborough Economic Development area for several years as the County continued work towards investing in a sewer"trunk line", south of Interstate 40 and west of Old Highway 86, in accordance with its Capital Improvement Plan developed in 2012. With an eye towards maximizing the use of the sewer line, there is interest in designating additional lands that could be served via a "gravity sewer line" for non-residential purposes. In addition, Orange County evaluates the amount of land available for economic development, and due to lands being developed as the UNC Hospital and Durham Technical Community College over the last few years, the limited supply in this area was considered for expansion. At its June 6, 2017 meeting, the BOCC approved amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) to expand the Hillsborough Primary Service Area. All parties have since approved the WASMPBA amendment, with the Town of Hillsborough Board as the last party to approve it in October 2017. Because of language included in the approval resolutions, the WASMPBA amendment is to become effective when the joint land use plan is amended to reflect the expanded Urban Service Area and assigned a future land use classification. Some of these background details, including notice to the Board when the land use plan amendments would be forthcoming, were included as an Information Item on the Board's June 16, 2020 agenda. The link to that Information Item is: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088MebLink/0/doc/62679/Pagel.aspx In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.3 Comprehensive Plan Amendments of the Unified Development Ordinance, the Planning Director has initiated amendments to the Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the vicinity of the southern portion of the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District. The amendments related to COCA affect 17 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 84 acres. The amendments related to the FLUM affect 20 parcels (in whole or part) encompassing 89 acres. The COCA proposed land use category is Suburban Office and the FLUM proposed category is Economic Development. These related amendments 14 are being proposed to prescribe the land uses that will be allowed in the expanded area for Economic Development. 1. The Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan is a joint land use document that defines the locations of future land use categories to help achieve a desired and coordinated pattern of development over time. The COCA Land Use Plan includes several urban-style land use categories that are more specific than those provided in the County's Comprehensive Plan, which covers a much larger geographic area. Implementation of the COCA Land Use Plan is achieved through consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, application of County zoning, and a coordinated approach to rezoning. The amendment proposes a "Suburban Office Complex" land use in the expansion area which would designate the area for office and employment, businesses in a campus setting, and limited supporting services. The proposed amendment also reflects the expansion of the Town's Urban Service Boundary consistent with the WASMPBA to provide water and sewer service to the area. As part of a joint land use plan, this amendment requires approval by the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County. The Town of Hillsborough has already taken action and unanimously approved the amendment as follows. Town of Hillsborough Approval Process: March 15, 2018—Town Public Hearing and Planning Board recommendation March 26, 2018 — Hillsborough Town Board adopted 2. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) defines the location of future land use categories, consistent with any joint land use plans, and is designed to accommodate a particular combination of general land uses. The FLUM helps achieve a desired pattern of development over time and is implemented primarily through zoning. The proposed amendment to this plan would change the expansion area from a Rural Residential land use to an Economic Development Transition Activity Node, which would designate the area for light industrial, distribution, office, service/retail uses, and flex space (typically one-story buildings designed, constructed, and marketed as suitable for use as offices but able to accommodate other uses such as a warehouse, showroom, manufacturing assembly, or similar operations). The County has not initiated any rezoning at this time. Currently, the area is zoned Rural Residential (R-1). However, approximately 12-acres of a developer initiated and proposed Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) are located in the amendment area discussed herein. Any rezoning that comes forward in the future will require a subsequent item on a public hearing and finding that it is consistent with the plans. Planning Board Recommendation: The Orange County Planning Board, at its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. Clarification of the motion voted upon was deemed necessary and the Planning Board considered a clarified motion at its special meeting on August 19, 2020 when the board voted 6-4 to recommend approval of the amendments. Agenda materials from these meetings can be viewed at: http://orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26 Public Hearing: A public hearing was opened on September 15, 2020 and continued without public comment to September 22, 2020 so that all members of the public signed up to speak on the RTLP proposal, a separate item on the agenda, would have 15 adequate opportunity to speak and be heard by the Board. At the September 22 hearing, four (4) people spoke on this item. Materials from the September 15 and 22 meetings are available at: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/1707/BOCC-Agendas. Video from the September 22, 2020 meeting and public hearing on this item can be accessed at: https://www.orangecountVnc.gov/967/Meeting-Videos. In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), regarding remote meetings during declared emergencies, written comments were allowed to be sent for 24-hours after the public hearing was closed. Comments sent to ocbocc(ab_orangecountync.gov are viewable at: https://groups.google.com/q/ocbocc?pli=1. The public comment period closed at 9:OOAM on September 24, 2020. The BOCC will not accept any further public comment. A RTLP Frequently Asked Questions document, which includes a section on Land Use and Zoning, was prepared in response to public comments and is available via the following link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12732/Final- Research-Triangle-Logistics-Park-FAQ?bid I d= Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Resolution contained in Attachment 1, indicating consistency with the County's land use and economic development goals. Text shown in the Resolution in "Track Changes" format is new text that was not included in the version received by the Planning Board and provides greater detail of the County's efforts, over time, to prepare additional area for Economic Development purposes. Attachment 2 is a Memo from the County Planning and Inspections Director that includes a Justification Outline for the proposed plan amendments. RES-2020-053 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH/ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL ORANGE COORDINATED AREA LAND USE PLAN ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the: • Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan, • Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, as established in Section 1.7 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan consists of the following: • Extend the Town's Urban Service Boundary for public water and sewer consistent with previously approved Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement amendment by all parties, and 16 • Add the Suburban Office Complex Future Land Use Classification to all or portions of 17 parcels, totaling 84 acres, located on both sides of Old Highway 86, south of Interstate 40, and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map consists of the following: • Amend all or portions of 20 parcels,totaling 89 acres, located on both sides of Old Highway 86, south of Interstate 40 from Rural Residential to Economic Development Transition. Additionally, 1.64 acres of road right-of-way is included, and • One overlay land use classification applies in this geographic area (Resource Protection Area). No modifications are being proposed to the boundary, and WHEREAS, the following parcels are affected by the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map amendment proposal: Parcel Entire or Owner on Record Acreage Identification Partial Parcel Proposed to Number to be be Changed (PIN) Changed? LANDMARK MANAGEMENT PARTNERS 9862998894 Partial LLC 11.69 9872087570 Partial CHARLENE W HAMLETT 0.03 9872095945 Partial LARRY B LEE 1.64 THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N 9872098324 Partial BRYANT 7.45 9872183072 Partial JOE L JERNIGAN 0.02 THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N 9872187626 Partial BRYANT 7.98 9872188329 Partial JOE L JERNIGAN and VICKIE R JERNIGAN 1.87 9872191961 Entire JEANINE L DUKE and JAMES N POULOS 1.18 THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N 9872193459 Entire BRYANT 10.23 9872196844 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.26 THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N 9872198336 Entire BRYANT 10.44 9872286360 Partial REA LANDCOM INC 0.04 THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY A 9872286779 Partial BRYANT 0.59 THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N 9872292222 Entire BRYANT 10.18 THEODORE L BRYANT and BEVERLY N 9872298289 Partial BRYANT 7.99 9873007189 Entire JOHN JR BOXTER and SHANNON MARTIN 1.06 9873008345 Entire JOSEPH S SHORE and SARAH C SHORE 2.71 MICHAEL W SUDYK and GEORGE W 9873104230 Entire SUDYK 4.45 9873104310 Partial BEATRICE S BROOKS 0.72 9873108103 Entire MICHAEL WILLIAM SUDYK 3.51 17 WHEREAS,the approved Article 46'/4-Cent County Sales and Use Tax, effective in April 2012, allocates 50% of the funds to Orange County Economic Development District initiatives including infrastructure improvements in the Hillsborough EDD area, and WHEREAS, Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have been discussing potential expansion of the Hillsborough Economic Development area for several years as the County continued work towards investing in a sewer "trunk line", in accordance with its Capital Improvement Plan developed in 2012, and WHEREAS, the proposals have been found to be internally consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan or part thereof including, but not limited to, the following: Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses, and mitigate these barriers. Objective ED-2.1: Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and sewer. (See also Land Use Objective LU-1.1 and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-5.) Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and industrial uses in the County. Objective ED-2.7: Select industrial sites in Economic Development Areas based on present and planned supporting systems, such as public water and sewer, access to adequate highway, rail, or public transportation infrastructures, and minimize detrimental environmental or negative social outcomes. (See also Water and Wastewater Objective WW-15.) Land Use Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and a high quality of life. Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high- speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available. (See also Economic Development Objectives ED-2.1, ED-2.3, ED-2.10, and Water and Wastewater Objective WW-2.) Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Sections 2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) has been deemed complete, and 18 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County that the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan and Orange County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map are hereby amended as depicted on the attached maps. Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of 12020. I, Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2020 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2020. SEAL Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Commissioner Price referred to the suburban style land use, and asked if this will affect the height of buildings. Tom Altieri said no, and height limitations are addressed in the County's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Commissioner Price said she is still concerned that staff is saying this has nothing to do with RTLP, as it clearly does in her mind. She said she is most concerned about the 12 acres being used as industrial/suburban office, etc. Tom Altieri said the recommendation is for the suburban office category, which is applicable to the COCA, and in regards to the County's FLUM, the recommendation is economic development transition. He said the two plans work together to inform any rezoning that would occur in the area. Commissioner Dorosin said these maps really illustrate a critical problem with many County maps. He said parcels are divided in different zonings and uses, and it is important to look at the boundaries of these areas and clean them up. He said every time one of these issues come up, it adds a complicating wrinkle that parcels have multiple designations on them. He said it is not fair to landowners, and it undermines the long range planning process. Commissioner McKee asked if Tom Altieri could restate his comments about agenda items "b" and "c". Tom Altieri said this set of land use amendments was originated in 2017, and this evening will conclude this process. He said if the BOCC chooses not to approve the land use amendments, it should do so not based on RTLP, but rather because it believes the area is not suitable for public water and sewer services. He said if the BOCC does approve these land use amendments, it could still make the decision to deny approval of RTLP. 19 Commissioner McKee said this process has been going on for 3 years, which is long before RTLP came into view. Commissioner Greene said Commissioner McKee beat her to the point, and these are very clearly separate items. Chair Rich said the Town of Hillsborough approved this plan in March 2018. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to approve the resolution amending the COCA Land Use Plan and the Orange County Comprehensive Plan FLUM. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANMIOUS b. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Parcels off Old NC Highway 86 (District 2 of Settlers Point MPD-CZ) The Board considered voting to approve the Statement of Consistency and the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas. Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, reviewed the following: BACKGROUND: A public hearing was opened on September 15, 2020 and continued without public comment to September 22, 2020 so that all members of the public signed up to speak on the RTLP proposal, a separate item on the agenda, would have adequate opportunity to speak and be heard by the Board. No one spoke on this item at the September 22 meeting. Materials from the public hearing are available at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink/0/doc/49647/Page1.aspx. Video from the September 22, 2020 meeting can be accessed at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos. In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), regarding remote meetings during declared emergencies, written comments were allowed to be sent for 24-hours after the public hearing was closed. Interested parties were told so submit comments via e-mail, or in writing to the Planning Department office at 131 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough, by 9:00 a.m. September 24, 2020. No written comments were received at the Planning Department office by the deadline. All comments sent to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov on this proposal are viewable at: https://groups.google.com/g/ocbocc. As staff indicated during the public hearing, a developer has proposed a new MPD-CZ district involving 2 parcels associated with the previously approved MPD-CZ (Settlers Point). Staff has determined the remaining 8 parcels will have difficulty complying with the MPD-CZ development standards as approved in 2018 with the elimination of these 2 parcels. In order to ensure these 8 parcels have development potential, staff recommends they be rezoned as follows: 20 1. Rezone parcels (PINs: 9873-11-4636, 9873-11-7506, 9873-11-5415, 9873-11-9450, 9873-11-7247, and 9873-10-7937), labeled as number(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the map above: FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. 2. Rezone parcel (PIN 9873-10-4310), labeled as number 10 on the map above: FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point, Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1). TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Office (EDH-2), Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1). 3. Rezone parcel (PIN 9873-20-2388), labeled as number 9 on the map above: FROM: Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Settlers Point and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. TO: Economic Development Hillsborough Office/Retail (EDH-4) and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District. Staff's proposal will return these 8 properties back to their original zoning designation in place prior to the approval of the MPD-CZ. Planning Board Recommendation: At its August 5, 2020 regular meeting, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 3) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 4) as proposed by staff. Excerpts of the minutes from this meeting, as well as the Board's signed statement of consistency, are included in https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26. Attachment 2. Agenda materials from the meeting can be viewed at: Planning Director's Recommendation: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) the Planning Director shall: `... cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration'. The Director has determined the proposed atlas amendments are necessary to ensure each parcel has development option(s) and that rezoning said parcels back to their original zoning designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. As a result, the Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 3 and the proposed zoning atlas amendment ordinance contained in Attachment 4. 21 Attachment 3 STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ADOPTED ORANGE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A Planning Director initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas to rezone 8 parcels as follows: Lot Parcel Township Owner Of Current ZaRtng ❑ishict Proposed Zoning District Humber Identification Record Humber{PINJ 1 9973-11-40313 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Economic Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsboraugh Limited Office Settlers 'oint; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Canidar Majar Trans portatianCorridar (fv1TC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District- 2 9673-11-75013 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Economic Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsboraugh Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major TransportadonCanidar Majar Trans portatianCorridar (fv1TC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District- 3 9873 11,5415 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Economic Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsborough Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Ca mda r Major Trans portata n C oRldar (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District- 4 9&73-11P456 Hillsborough Paul Dodson Master Plan Development Economic Development Con ditionaj Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsboraugh Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Canidar MajarTransportatianCorridar (fv1TC)Overay District (MTC)Overlay District- 5 idB73-11-7247 Hillsborough Cathy Fuquay Master Plan Development Economic Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsbwraugh Limited Office Cynthia gessoir Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Ca mdar Major TransportatanCOrndar (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District- 6 9873-10-7937 Hillsborough Steven and Master Plan Development Economic Development Jesse Kaufman Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hijlsborough Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Camdor Majar Trans portationCorridor (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District- 7 9873-10-4311) Hillsborough Beatrice Brooks Master Plan Development Economic Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsborough Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Canidar Major TransportatianCorridar (fv1TC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District- Rural Residential(R-1) Rural Residential(R-1) 8 9873-20-2388 Hillsborough Robert and Mas:er Plan Development Economic Development Lucille Ayers Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsborough OfficetRet3il ETAL Settlers Point; (EDH-4) Major Transportation Corridor Majar Trans portatianCorridor (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District- 22 The BCCC finds: a- The requirements of Section 2.B of the UDO have been deemed complete-, and, b- Pursuant to sections 1-1-5, and 1.1.7 of the UDO and to Section 153A-341 of the North Carolina General statutes, the Board finds sufficient documentation within the record denoting that the amendment is consistent with the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 1- The amendment is consistent with applicable plans because it supports the following 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: Objective ED-1.5: Identify barriers to development of desirable businesses and local businesses,and mitigate these barriers. The atlas amendment is consistent with this goal and objective as it eliminates the need for the parcels to comply with development critenia associated with a previously approved Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning(MPD-CZ) district. This district, commonly referred to as Settlers Point, is being modified- These 8 parcels will have difficulty meeting established development conditionsfstandlards due to the proposed modification. By rezoning these parcels, the County will be providing opportunities for each lot to be developed consistent with applicable Counter land use standards as embodied within the UDO. c- The amendment is reasonable and in the public interest because it: 1- Modifies existing non-residential zoning designations in an effort to provide each property owner with an opportunitylpath forward for the reasonable development of their property- The Board cf County Commissioners hereby adopts this statement of Consistency and findings expressed herein- Penny Rich,Chair Date 23 Attachment 4 16 Ordnance#:OAD-2020-022 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONING ATLAS WHEREAS, Orange County has initiated amendments to the Orange County Zoning Atlas, as established in Section 1.2 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance(UDO),and WHEREAS,the proposed rezoning consists of the following: Lot Parcel Township Owner of Current Zoning District Proposed Zoning District Humber Identification Re-cord Humber{PIN} 91373-1'-4530 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Masker Plan Development Economic Development Con d itional Zoning (MPD-CZ) HiAsbora.ugh Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Camdar Major Trans portationCDrridar (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay district_ 2 9873-11-7506 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development ECDnomIC Development Con d itional Zon ing (MPD-CZ) Hillsborough Limited Office Settlers Point: (EDH-2) Major Transportation Canidar Major Trans portatianCDrridar (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay district. 3 0873-11-5415 Hillsborough Michael Dodson Master Plan Development Economic Development Con d itiona I Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsboraugh Limited Office Settlers Doint; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Camclar Major Trans portatia n C Daida r (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District. 4 9873-11-945D Hillsborough Paul Dodson Master Plan Development Economic Development Con ditionalZoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsboraugh Limited Offce Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Camdar Major Trans portatianCDrridar (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District. 5 0873-11-7247 Hillsborough Cathy Fuquay Master Plan Development Economic Development Cynthia Bessoir Con ditionalZoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsborough Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Canidar Major Transportation Corridor (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District 8 91373-10-7937 Hillsborough Steven and Master Plan Development Economic Development Jesse Kaufman Con d itional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hidlsboratrgh Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major TransportatimCarridar Major Trans portatianCDrridar (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District. 7 9873-10-431D Hillsborough Beatrice Brooks Master Plan Development Economic Development Con d itional Zoning (MPD-CZ) HiJlsborough Limited Office Settlers Point; (EDH-2) Major Transportation Camdar Major Trans portationCDRldar (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District- Rural Residential(R-1) Rural Residential(R-1) 1 24 8 9873-20-2389 Hillsborough Robert and Masker Plan Development Economic Development Lucille Ayers Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) Hillsborough OficeiRetaiI ETAL Settlers Point; (EDH-4) Major TransportatianCanidar Major TransportatianCorridor (MTC)Overlay District (MTC)Overlay District. WHEREAS, the proposal has been found to be consistent with the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS,the requirements of Section 2.8 of the UDO have been deemed complete,and WHEREAS, the Board has found the proposed zoning atlas amendment to be reasonably necessary to promote the public health, safety, and geineral-welfare. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange county that the Orange County Zoning Atlas is hereby amended to rezone the areas described above and depicted on the attached maps. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT this ordinance be placed in the book of published ordinances and that this ordinance is effective upon its adoption. Upon motion of commissioner seconded by commissioner , the foregoing ordinance was adopted this day of . 2020. I, Greg Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for Orange County, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on , 2020 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of the said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of 12020. SEAL Interim Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Commissioner McKee asked if one motion could be made to approve both the statement of consistency and the ordinance amending the zoning atlas. John Roberts said he would prefer the motions be separate. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the map on page 40 (electronic version), and said there is a strip of land between number 5 and 6, and another cut out between 6 and 7, and asked if those two parcels are part of the EDH2. Michael Harvey said those two parcels are zoned EDH2 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to approve the Statement of Consistency. 25 Roll call ensued. VOTE: UNANMIOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford to approve the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANMIOUS c. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) for the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) Michael Harvey reviewed the following information: PURPOSE: To continue review and discussion on an applicant initiated Zoning Atlas Amendments for 3 parcels west of Old NC Highway 86/south of Interstate 40 to Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ) district. Specifically, the Board will be finalizing on an application submitted by Terra Equity Incorporated to rezone parcels within PIN numbers 9863-71-8857, 9863-91-6573, and 9862-99-8894: FROM: MPD-CZ (Settlers Point), Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Residential (R-1), and Rural Buffer (RB). TO: MPD-CZ (Research Triangle Logistics Park), Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District, Rural Buffer (RB). NOTE: As indicated at the public hearing, approximately 26,000 sq.ft. of property (PIN 9862-99-8894) shall remain zoned RB and will remain in open space. As a general reminder the public comment period for this item closed at 9:00 a.m. on September 24, 2020. The BOCC will not be accepting any further public comment on this item. As the Board is aware, staff has recommended the imposition of several conditions designed to address the impacts of the project as well as address some of the concerns expressed by the general public. These conditions must mutually be agreed to by the applicant. At the writing of this abstract, staff and the applicant are still working to finalize various conditions. BACKGROUND: Review of this item began at the BOCC's September 15, 2020 BOCC regular meeting and concluded with the closure of the public hearing on September 22, 2020. Agenda materials from the public hearing can be accessed at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=61357&row=1&dbid=0. Video from the September 15 and 22, 2020 meetings can be accessed at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos. Approximately 100 people spoke on this item over the course of the two public hearing dates. In accordance with Session Law 2020-3 Section 4.31(a), regarding remote meetings during declared emergencies, written comments were allowed to be sent for 24-hours after the public hearing was closed. Interested parties were told so submit comments via e-mail, or in writing to 26 the Planning Department office at 131 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough, by 9:00 a.m. September 24, 2020. No written comments were received at the Planning Department office by the deadline. All comments sent to ocbocc@orangecountync.gov on this proposal are viewable at: https:Hgroups.google.com/g/ocbocc. Proposal: The applicant is proposing to rezone the 3 identified parcels to a new MPD-CZ district allowing for the development of a new master planned project, referred to as the Research Triangle Logistics Park (RTLP) summarized as follows: 1. Construction of approximately 2,400,000 sq.ft. of building area supporting non- residential development and preserve 41 acres (25%) of land as open space. 2. Permitted land uses within the new MPD-CZ district would include: a. Health technology, b. Information sciences and engineering, c. Advanced and light manufacturing, d. Scientific research and laboratories, e. Logistics/supply operations, f. Warehousing and supply chain fulfillment services. The applicant has also provided a list of land uses that would be strictly prohibited within the new district; 3. Vehicular access would be through Service Road, running parallel with Interstate 40, and Davis Road; 4. Buildings would observe a 6 story height limit consistent with County regulations. Accessory structures (i.e. water tower, telecommunication tower, etc.) may be higher. 5. The applicant is proposing imposition of development and design standards (i.e. architectural design, signage, internal and external setback limits, height limits, landscaping/buffer standards, outdoor lighting standards, erosion control/stormwater, etc.) governing overall development of the project if the MPD-CZ district is approved by the County. During the public hearing several concern(s) were expressed over the project, summarized as follows: a. Proposed development is too intensive for the 161 acres of land (i.e. over 2,400,00 sq.ft. of building area cannot be accommodated on the 3 parcels); b. Proposed land uses are not in harmony with surrounding property; c. The applicant has not provided sufficient details on proposed land uses. Local residents have expressed concern(s) they will not have a voice is recommending denial of specific tenants; d. Action on the application will result in illegal spot zoning subjecting the County to a court challenge. Specifically the parcel along Davis Road is within the Rural Residential land use category, as defined in the County's Comprehensive Plan, and was never intended to support high intensity economic development projects; e. The request is inconsistent with various goals and policies of the adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan including but not limited to: 27 i. Allow for intensive non-residential development in an area of the county designated as a rural and/or protected area, ii. Will not result in adequate protection of the natural environment, iii. Will not be in harmony with surrounding land uses. f. Will negatively impact rural neighborhoods in and around Davis Road due to the proposed driveway allowing vehicular access to and from the development. The driveway will generate too much traffic on the road creating a public safety hazard. Further, commercial vehicles will make use of existing, rural roadways (i.e. Old NC Highway 86, New Hope Church Road, Orange Grove Road); g. The project does not provide enough protection for existing environmental features (i.e. streams, floodplains, and identified hardwood forests), will have a negative impact on Cates Creek, and will impair the health of the Eno River; h. Development will negatively impact and displace local wildlife; i. Insufficient safeguards are proposed addressing stormwater runoff and impacts on adjacent property owners; j. Development of buildings with a maximum height limit of 60 feet will dominate the local landscape; k. Truck traffic will create health hazards for residents due to increases in diesel exhaust/fumes. Further, noise created by these trucks will negatively impact local residents and will constitute violation(s) of applicable noise regulations; I. The applicant has been inconsistent in the number of jobs the project will generate; m. The submitted traffic impact analysis is contradictory with the application narrative. As previous indicated, there are numerous recommended conditions designed to address the anticipated impacts of the project. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this item on August 5 and 19, 2020. The Board voted 6 to 4 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 3) as proposed by staff. Those voting against the project cited the following concerns: a. The Board wanted the applicant to provide the specific tenants (i.e. names, operational characteristics, etc.) within the project for `review and approval' prior to action being taken on the zoning atlas amendment request; b. Board members expressed concern over anticipated traffic impacts on Davis Road; c. The project was deemed to be too intensive for the area. Excerpts of the minutes from these meetings, as well as the Board's signed statement of consistency, are included in Attachment 1. Agenda materials from the meetings can be viewed at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the: 1. Statement of Consistency indicating the zoning atlas amendment(s) are reasonable and in the public interest as contained in Attachment 2. STAFF COMMENT: This presumes the land use designation of the 12 acre parcel (PIN 9862-99-8894) is changed from Rural Residential to Economic Development Transition Activity Node as detailed herein. If the aforementioned FLUM is not approved, the staff recommendation will have to be revised. 28 2. Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas, as well as imposing development conditions, for the identified parcels as contained in Attachment 3. Effect of Denial or Withdrawal: In the event the rezoning application is denied or withdrawn, it should be noted that Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment, affecting the same property or portion thereof, may be submitted for a period of one year. The one year period begins on the date of denial or withdrawal. RECOMMENDATION: In the absence of the applicant formally accepting recommended conditions, the Manager recommended the Board continue to review/discuss the project and review imposition of additional conditions. If the applicant accepts the imposition of recommended conditions, in writing, by the October 6, 2020 meeting the BOCC can approve the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2), and the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 3). Commissioner Price asked if the Town of Hillsborough plans to annex this site. Michael Harvey said there is no plan to annex this property based on the approval of this plan. He said if the site goes over the daily water allotment, then the Town may require annexation as a condition of any additional water and sewer. Commissioner Price asked if the fire department has enough equipment to handle buildings that are over five stories high. Michael Harvey said yes, and the buildings will have to have sprinkler systems throughout, in accordance with state building code. Commissioner Price asked if these buildings will place a greater burden on the fire department. Michael Harvey said this question was asked, and the answer was that it will not have an impact on fire provision and service. Commissioner McKee referred to page 52, section b-1, second paragraph, and said the language is confusing. Michael Harvey said the height limit is 60 feet for the project at large, and those structures fronting Davis Road shall not exceed 40 feet in height. He said there was a repetition of words by mistake, which he corrected. Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the language of"fronting on Davis Road," and asked what will happen if the front of the building is on an inside road. Michael Harvey said if a building has frontage on Davis Road, even if the front entrance is on an internal street, the height will not be able to exceed 40 feet. He said this language is from the Applicant, and it may be best to speak with them on this matter. Commissioner Price said the County could insure this condition. Commissioner Greene asked Michael Harvey if he could read the second paragraph under"b" the way it is meant to be written. Michael Harvey said the statement should read "no structure shall be erected fronting Davis Road which exceeds 40 ft. in height, above the highest elevation of the adjoining portion of Davis Road, as measured to the roof deck of the building." Commissioner Greene asked if"the highest elevation of the adjoining portion of Davis Road" could be clarified. Michael Harvey said the Applicant is trying to articulate the fact that parts of Davis Road have higher elevation than the property. He said the goal is trying to avoid an arbitrary 40-foot height limit when the land itself goes up and down. Commissioner Greene said now she is even more confused. She said at first reading she was worried the measurement would be from the highest portion of Davis Road, which 29 could be at a higher grade level than the property, and lead to buildings being higher than 40 feet. She said she would prefer it to read that buildings cannot exceed 40 feet starting at grade level wherever the building is built. Michael Harvey said it would be best to ask this question of the Applicant. He said he reads the language as a way for the Applicant to address the fact that portions of Davis Road are at a higher elevation than the property. He said the Applicant will take the measurement from the highest portion of the adjoining Davis Road property to the roof deck of the building. Commissioner Greene said so the building could exceed 40 feet. Michael Harvey said yes, but it would not exceed 40 from under the guise of measuring at Davis Road. He said if the property is 10 feet lower, then the building could be 50 feet, but fronting Davis Road, there will be no buildings higher than 40 feet. Commissioner Greene said this is a conversation she would like to have with the Developer. Commissioner Marcoplos said the Board should have a conversation with the Developer. He said the overall development should be 40 feet high, as opposed to use a geographical feature near by to raise the height of the buildings. He said there could be a central measuring point that is used for the 40-foot height limit. Commissioner McKee said he appreciated Commissioner Greene's comments and remarks about asking the developer. He said he sees this wording as a way to achieve a 50 or 60-foot facade on Davis Road. Commissioner Price referred to the setbacks, and asked if follow up discussion needs to be had with the Developer. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Price said the County has put in setbacks to protect green space, and asked if there is reasoning behind the developer reducing the setbacks. Michael Harvey said it would be best to talk to the Applicant. Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 54, point IV-d, and asked if staff could clarify its purpose. Michael Harvey said the rationale for the extension is to allow for additional service on adjoining parcels, and potentially develop a true service road going west. He said it is part of County's efforts to spread connectivity. Commissioner Price referred to page 55, item n, and said there was so much discussion about Davis Road, but the Applicant seems to want to keep Davis Road as a part of the plan. Michael Harvey said the Applicant has put in conditions to mitigate concerns about Davis Road, but he suggests the Board discuss this further with the Applicant. He said the Applicant believes the concerns can be addressed with a Davis Road driveway. Commissioner Greene referred to page 55, item p, and said she thought once the road was saturated with the trucks there would be two left turn lanes, but rather it seems a second access onto 86 would be needed. She asked if there is a plan in place, should the second access not be possible. She asked if development would not be able to expand. Michael Harvey said the intent of the condition is to show that the Applicant has worked with all involved to preserve a left turn from the service road onto 86. He said the time may come that the left turn may become untenable, and if so, the Applicant would have to find an alternative access point to allow traffic to turn left onto old 86. Commissioner Greene said she still does not see what happens if the second access point cannot be secured. Michael Harvey said if the second access point cannot be secured, then the development that necessitated it in the first place would not be allowed to proceed. Commissioner Marcoplos said there is no language about traffic stopping while pursuing the second access point. 30 Michael Harvey said site plans would have to be approved, and staff would not approve a project that failed to allow traffic to go left. He said it is conceivable that the Applicant will proceed with improvements that would make these issues moot. Commissioner Marcoplos said this is all somewhat hypothetical, and development would not proceed if it was unsafe. Michael Harvey said yes. He said an updated TIA may make this a moot point. Commissioner Marcoplos said it begs the question of why not find a safer access point now. Michael Harvey said the Applicant has looked at various options, and have found no alternate access point. He said if the project is approved, that may motivate landowners to sell. Commissioner Bedford said if the Applicant will still proceed with a light at Davis and Old 86 if the left turn out of the access road is approved. Michael Harvey said yes. Commissioner Greene referred to page 58, item A, and asked if the wording "substantially" could be explained. Michael Harvey said that is a question for the Applicant. Chair Rich referred to page 58, item xiv, and asked if the percentage of these buildings that will be operated 24/7 is known. She said motion detector lights are not necessary if buildings are closed. Michael Harvey said the application does not get into that level of detail, but there are no regulatory standards establishing hours of operation. Commissioner Bedford referred to page 60, and asked if regulations require trees be native, non-invasive species. Michael Harvey said yes, current regulations require drought resistant, native, non- invasive species. He said the Applicant will have to abide by those standards. Commissioner Marcoplos referred to page 67, item VIII-a, and asked if there is anything else in the UDO that provides protection. Michael Harvey said there are stream buffers in place, and the Applicant will not install anything within 30 feet of the buffer, which is more restrictive than code currently requires. Michael Harvey concluded his comments, and suggested the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) hear from the Applicant. Commissioner Marcoplos suggested going through the zoning atlas amendment page by page with the Applicant. Michael Birch said the first question raised was about building heights. He said based on the comments received by the BOCC tonight, the buildings will have a maximum of 40 feet of height from the finished floor to the roof deck, and those measurements are not in relationship to Davis Road. Commissioner Greene thanked the Applicant for this concession, but said she has additional concerns. She said 40 feet is too tall for a transitional area. She said she was told last time that those parcels labeled suburban on the map are meant to be transitional areas. She said 40 foot tall buildings may be appropriate in suburban Charlotte, but they are not in suburban Hillsborough. She said she would like to see provision around buildings that it be stepped back, so that it has character. Michael Birch said the Applicant does have a 100-foot wide vegetative buffer along both property lines, as well as Davis Road. He said 40 feet is close to a residential home with three stories, or a suburban apartment building exceeds 40 feet. He said the building will be well screened, especially from Davis Road. Commissioner Greene asked if a 40-foot building is a typical number of stories. Michael Birch said an industrial building would be one story at 40 feet, so there is not a natural area for a set back. Commissioner Greene asked if offices would be a part of the building. 31 Michael Birch said offices are on the same main floor. Commissioner Price asked if there is a plan in place for buildings that have a front door on an internal street. Michael Birch said the intent of the wording is for the buildings that are closest to Davis Road, not so much that the building's front faces Davis Road. Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the height of the building, depending on how the land is graded. Michael Birch said the Applicant had the same concern, and attempted to mitigate this with language about heights near Davis Road. He said the building will be sitting in a hole relative to Davis Road. Commissioner Price asked if this will be a warehouse or a suburban office building. Michael Birch said he does not anticipate this being a multistory office building. Commissioner Price asked if the facility would be more of a warehouse Michael Birch said there are architectural examples in the Applicant's materials. He said it will not look like a typical warehouse, nor will it look like a standard, storied office building. Commissioner McKee asked if the Applicant could explain how it arrived at the particular language related to the height section, as he finds it to be a way to get past the 40-foot height requirement. Michael Birch said the wording was developed based on the Applicant's interpretation of the Board's comments. He said the Applicant worked with staff to focus on the views that will be seen from Davis Road. He said the Applicant capped the height at 40 feet at Davis Road, because buildings behind it will not be visible, as the land is lower there. Commissioner McKee said he brought up the concern of seeing a 60-foot structure from Davis Road. He asked if the Applicant is purporting that one will see the top 40 feet of the building from Davis Road, but not the bottom 20 feet as the elevation is lower. Michael Birch said there is 100 feet from the right of way of Davis Road that is vegetated into the site. He said this will largely screen the building. He said the Applicant may have misunderstood, and is now proposing that the cap be 40 feet, and not be relative to Davis Road. Commissioner McKee said this convoluted language was off putting. He said the accommodation was made by changing the language to 40 feet, and would have been simpler to just make this change in the first place. He said a 100 foot buffer is not as effective as one may hope. Michael Birch said the Applicant was not trying to be tricky, and was seeking to focus on the view from Davis Road. Commissioner McKee asked if the Developer has an opinion on a 30-foot height cap on Davis Road. Michael Birch said a 30-foot building is functionally incompatible with the demands of the market place for these types of uses. Michael Harvey said he can type in modifications as they come up, or staff can simply take direction. He said he needs specifics on which to work with the Applicant. Chair Rich asked for an example of an existing 40-foot building locally. Michael Harvey said the UNC hospital in Hillsborough is about 60 feet. He said the Applicant is willing to amend the language to say buildings on Davis Road will have a max height of 40 feet from floor to rooftop. Michael Birch said the proposed language is 40 feet from finished floor to roof deck. Commissioner Marcoplos said he is glad for the clarification about the height requirement, and feels this is in line with the Board's wishes. Commissioner Greene asked if there is an appreciable difference between the roof deck and rooftop. Michael Birch said with a flat roof there is the roof deck and then a parapet that is a few feet higher. 32 Commissioner Greene said this extra height might screen HVAC equipment, for example. Michael Birch said that is correct, anything that is on the roof may be screened. Commissioner Greene said the whole building would be more than 40 feet. Michael Birch said from an appearance perspective yes. He said the Durham Tech building is about 40 feet. Commissioner McKee referred to the roof deck and the parapet shielding things on top of the roof, and said the height from the roof deck will be more than just a few extra feet. Michael Birch said there are several different ways to screen these features, including specialized screenings closer to the units. He said building heights are not typically measured to the height of a parapet. Commissioner McKee said it is thus impossible to know how tall this building will appear from a visual perspective. Michael Birch said that is not the Applicant's intent. He said the Applicant would be willing to impose a maximum parapet height, if desired. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the plan for this evening is for the BOCC to negotiate the parts of this agreement, and the BOCC vote on the item at the end. He said he would like to focus on items within the proposal that Commissioners are unable to accept, and see if there is potential for further compromise. He asked if the BOCC must vote on this item tonight, or can it see a written version of the changes and vote at a later time. John Roberts the BOCC can vote on approval or denial tonight. He said if the BOCC imposes conditions with which the Applicant does not agree, the BOCC must give the Applicant time to consider the conditions, and vote at a later date. Chair Rich said she wants to know if there are items within the conditions that the BOCC cannot accept, and focus the discussion on these topics. Commissioner Dorosin said the building height discussion is important, but precise decisions need to be made, and feedback given. Commissioner Greene asked is Commissioner Dorosin is asking for a straw vote on each issue. Commissioner Dorosin said not a straw vote, but if the Applicant proposes a condition either accept, propose an alternative, and move on. Commissioner Greene agreed, and said not all issues need intimate discussion. She said the building height and truck traffic are big issues, but the entire proposal is a package as a whole, and she would vote no as the proposal currently stands. She said she would like it to come back later. Commissioner Dorosin asked if Commissioner Greene could define later. Commissioner Greene said she would like to go through each of the big issues: building height, traffic, buffers, etc. Michael Harvey said staff is looking to get direction so that it can work with the Applicant. He said he needs some suggested conditions, and universal consensus is not necessary. He said specifics are necessary, so that he can work with the Applicant to get the BOCC what it wants. Commissioner Bedford said the BOCC can tackle the more urgent conditions, but it is important to go through every page so that the BOCC can vote yes or no. Commissioner McKee said he appreciates the comments, and he has specific numbers and conditions that he will, or will not, agree to, on about 10 different items. Commissioner McKee proposed that the building height on Davis Road be 40 feet, from the top of the building pad to the highest structural component on the front fagade. Commissioner Marcoplos said if the building is 100 feet off the road with varying topography, he said 40 feet with a 4-6 foot parapet will not make a difference. He said the 33 parapet will make the building more visually appealing, and it is not that big a deal. He said he supports 40-45 feet, including the parapet. Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the scale of the building. She said she wants it to blend in with the surrounding landscape and road scape. She said she wants the conversation to move forward, and she is totally against a service road coming to Davis Road. Chair Rich said she agrees with Commissioner Marcoplos, and thinks the parapet is important. She said if an opaque buffer can be put in place it would be good. Commissioner McKee said a 40-foot limit does not mean that solar arrays and HVAC equipment should be seen, but rather the parapet is included in the 40 feet. Michael Harvey said he would look at these two suggestions with the Applicant. Chair Rich said to move onto the discussion of Davis Road. Commissioner Dorosin summarized the current proposal. Michael Birch said he would like to explain what the Applicant anticipates for this part of the plan. He introduced his colleague Frank Csapo. Frank Csapo said there is a misconception on what is being proposed. He said great concerns were raised at the public meeting about access to Davis Road, and in response, the Applicant met with staff to issue a revised TIA, in which all the traffic is routed through the service road to old 86. He said NCDOT approved this change. He said the approval received by NCDOT is based on the trip generation report. He said no alternate access points will be needed. He said the Applicant preserved a left out, and right in traffic pattern. He said access to Davis Rd can be restricted to emergency vehicles only, if the BOCC so desires. Chair Rich said the written condition in front of her does not line up with what was just said. Frank Csapo said the Applicant thought the BOCC was amenable to small vans and light traffic on Davis Road. He said if this is not accurate, the BOCC can prohibit those types of vehicles on Davis Road as well. Commissioner McKee clarified that the Developer will accept a condition that states there will be no access to Davis Road, except for emergency vehicles. Frank Csapo said that is correct. Commissioner McKee asked if that would remove item n, o, and p from page 55. Frank Csapo said yes. Commissioner McKee asked if there is a reason these items were included in the first place. Frank Csapo said it was his understanding that the BOCC was open to car and light van traffic on Davis Road. He said if this was a misunderstanding he apologizes, and the BOCC can limit all traffic on Davis Road if it so chooses. Commissioner Dorosin said the Developer has agreed to eliminate the access to Davis Road, and that is a positive step, which addresses many concerns. He said to instruct staff to make that change, and if it is important to leave in emergency vehicles in writing, then do so. Commissioner McKee agreed. Frank Csapo agreed. Commissioner Price asked if a road will still be cut. Frank Csapo said yes, but it will be access controlled. He said the Developer can work with Emergency Services on what is favorable. Commissioner Bedford asked if there is a reason the BOCC has not known about the NCDOT approval prior to tonight. Frank Csapo said the supplemental TIA was submitted to NCDOT about 10 days ago. He said congestion management issued a recommendation for approval of a fully functional signal intersection at service road and old 86. He said based on that recommendation, the developer was issued an approval of the redesign of this intersection on Friday afternoon. Commissioner Bedford asked if item p on page 55 will be deleted. 34 Frank Csapo said yes. Commissioner Bedford asked if Craig Benedict, Planning Director, could explain why the BOCC did not receive communication about the changes from NCDOT. Craig Benedict said NCDOT gave its response late last week, but the agenda was out already. He said item p says the amount of trips generated can be serviced by the suggested improvements, and if this was ever exceeded then a midblock point would be needed, and p was included to address this. Commissioner Bedford said it sounds like the Planning Department wants to keep item p, and she is unclear how to define when conditions would be exceeded. Frank Csapo said the traffic generation study that was approved contemplated a build up to 2.4 million square feet, and said this information could be included as a trigger point for further review. Michael Harvey said that language is already in the document. Commissioner Bedford asked if staff would think through this wording, and see if any changes are needed. She said overall this is good news, but she does not understand why she is only just hearing it. Chair Rich said one reason is that information needs to be shared publicly. Commissioner Greene said items m, n, o, and p are no longer necessary. She thanked the Applicant for taking all traffic off of Davis Road. Commissioner McKee also expressed thanks for the efforts made to take traffic off of Davis Road. He asked if a fully signalized intersection will allow for right and left turns immediately. Frank Csapo said yes. Commissioner McKee said developing a fully signalized intersection will require right of way that does not currently exist. He asked if the Developer had conversations with NCDOT about how to obtain this access. Frank Csapo said the NCDOT approval indicates that there is no funding at NCDOT to secure the right of way, and the responsibility would fall to the Developer. He said in response to that, the Developer has reached out to pertinent property owners and is having ongoing dialogue with them. Commissioner McKee said he was made aware of the amount that was offered for the required land, and he considers it a pittance. Frank Csapo disagreed, and said the Developer is spending more than $5 million to bring water and sewer to the area, and $3 million to bring a fully signalized intersection, which will bring great investment to the area and increase in property values. Commissioner McKee said he is glad that the Developer has been able to make these advances with the plan. Commissioner Bedford asked if the Developer will be required to make improvements where Davis Road and Old 86 meet. Frank Csapo said no. Commissioner Price asked if the service road will be widened to accommodate traffic, and if the easements are required to do so. Frank Csapo said yes. Commissioner Price asked if most traffic can be directed to the left. Frank Csapo said the traffic cannot be controlled, but the intersection is immediately adjacent to the 1-40 on ramp, and it seems only local traffic will go to the right. Commissioner Price said trucks may be tired of waiting to turn left, and there may additional build out in the area due to the installation of public water and sewer. Chair Rich said the next issue to consider is the parking area. Commissioner Greene said she would oppose barbed wire in any part of the property. Frank Csapo said there will be no barbed wire. 35 Frank Csapo said this will be a master plan development, and there will be an architectural review committee that will review all plans and aesthetics. Michael Harvey said it will still be hard to enforce these conditions. He said an architectural committee means nothing to him. Commissioner Greene said perhaps it should not be included at all. Craig Benedict said that would be his opinion as well. Michael Harvey said there are architectural design standards in the Orange County UDO, and the Applicant was recommended to address similar compliance points. He said this does some of that, but the language does not allow him to definitively allow for violations. Commissioner Dorosin asked if those standards can be imported here to make determinations. Michael Harvey said that was a suggestion, and the conditions here were taken from the application narrative. He said the Applicant took its lead from Settlers Point, but there is some specificity missing here that was in Settlers Point. Chair Rich asked if the language from the UDO could be added here. Michael Harvey said he will work with the Applicant to attempt to improve the language. Commissioner Price said "harmonious and compatible" is vague and can mean different things to different people. She said she would like more specificity to aid with enforcement. Frank Csapo said there are photographic examples in the application materials of these items. Chair Rich said the next item is the parking lot layout. Michael Harvey said the application does not address all the possible permitted land uses, and if more parking would be needed. Frank Csapo said the Applicant has addressed this issue, and there is typically too many parking spaces made with large development. He said these spaces will accommodate the use. Commissioner Greene said this answer makes sense to her. She asked if"general office use" can be explained. Frank Csapo said a typical warehouse building has 5% office occupied space, and that portion will be built out as office area. He said office square footage would apply to that area, and industrial square footage would apply to the rest of the open area. Commissioner Price asked if the Developer knows the breakdown of the property use percentages. Frank Csapo said no, but the office space will be minimal. Chair Rich said she hears a difference between the Developer and staff's description. Michael Harvey said this is what the Applicant has proposed, and he has no comfort level on this proposal. Commissioner Marcoplos said he would favor less parking wherever possible, and to trust the Developer on this. Chair Rich said the next issues are setbacks and buffers. Commissioner Price said she is concerned about setbacks. She said Orange County already has setback standards, based on a variety of reasons, and asked if the Applicant could justify its reduction of these setbacks. Frank Csapo put a map on the screen, and said he does not agree that the Applicant is not complying with County buffers, as there is a 100 foot building buffer around the south and west boundaries of the property. He said there are logistical issues associated with the property that are immutable boundaries that are fixed, and around which the Applicant must work. He said there is a flood plain, a Duke power easement, and an additional County boundary. He said given these immutable objects the project must adjust accordingly. Commissioner Price said she wants to preserve the 100-foot no build buffer. Frank Csapo said there are no adjacent property owners that have houses near the property. He said there is a 100-foot building buffer all the way around, and a no build 50-foot 36 buffer. He said this is necessary due to the immutable boundaries on numerous sides of the property, bisecting north, south, east and west. He said for buildings to be functional to the marketplace, there are certain dimensions that must be available. He said bay depths mean something, and these buffers are what the Developer can offer given the physical needs of the buildings. Commissioner Price said the Developer could reduce the number of buildings to allow for more buffer. Frank Csapo said reducing the number of buildings would make the project unviable economically, due to the amount of investment that must be made up front to develop the site. Chair Rich asked if Michael Harvey could state the requirements of the County's UDO. Michael Harvey said if this parcel were zoned economic development— Hillsborough, there would be a 100-foot perimeter buffer. He said this is required for the edge of the economic development districts. He said the BOCC required a more restrictive buffer of 125 feet along the southern and western borders for Settlers Point. He said the Applicant is proposing a 50-foot land use buffer along the southern and western property lines, and a 100- foot building setback. Commissioner Marcoplos said 50 feet from one's property to a road is not very much, and he wondered if there could be a 65-foot buffer with dense vegetative plantings. Frank Csapo said the dimensional request will be hard to accommodate, but dense plantings are achievable. He said within the 50 feet, the Developer can increase the amount of vegetative buffer. Commissioner Marcoplos said he is uncomfortable with that proposal. Chair Rich agreed. She said she remembers this discussion with Settler's Point, where dense plantings were encouraged, but the larger buffer also existed. Commissioner Greene also agreed. Commissioner Price said the buffer issue goes along with open space, which the Developer is reducing to 25% from the required 30%. Frank Csapo said there is 32% open space on the plan. Michael Harvey said all documents he has reviewed have shown 25%. Frank Csapo said 30% open space can be accommodated. Commissioner Greene asked if the open space includes storm water basins, as she would hope not. Frank Csapo said under the UDO it is included. Commissioner Greene asked if this is where the discrepancy is occurring between the Applicant and County staff. Frank Csapo said no, the paperwork that staff has seen says at least 25%, but the actual plan that the Developer is working with is 32%. Commissioner Greene asked if there can be any assurance that the storm water basins will look like ponds, or actual open space. Frank Csapo said he is unsure of any standard to apply there, but will work with staff to alleviate BOCC concerns. Commissioner Price asked if that will be a retention pond or a draining pond. Frank Csapo said wet ponds. Chair Rich said there is no agreement on the buffers. Craig Benedict said the Applicant has agreed to put what is typically in 150 feet into 100 feet in a denser manner and linear fashion. He said the UDO has a 75-foot buffer requirement, with specifics about trees. He said this could be compressed to a 50-foot buffer with dense, evergreen plantings. Frank Csapo said this would be acceptable. Chair Rich asked if this falls in line with the UDO. 37 Craig said the UDO has multiple buffers, with varied plantings. He said the 50-foot buffer could have the quantity of plantings that would be found in a 75-foot buffer. He said the 75-foot buffer contains more evergreens. He said this would be an alternate design option. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there was a way to measure the densification. Craig Benedict said yes, there is a certain amount of trees in each size of buffer. He said the same amount of trees that would go in a 75-foot wide area would be compressed into a 50-foot wide area. Commissioner Marcoplos said that may be an option, as long as the outcome could be measurable. Craig Benedict said it is quantifiable. Commissioner Greene said it is quantifiable while the trees are living, but those trees will change, and it is not the same as a 100-foot buffer. Craig Benedict said the project has a requirement to maintain buffers, and have trees grow from initial planting to mature heights. He said the County monitors this. Commissioner Greene asked who covers this expense. Craig Benedict said it is an ongoing inspection process done by the County, and if non- compliance is found, the County sends a letter to the Developer for correction. Chair Rich said she has a problem with the buffers, and would like to see an option that includes the 100-foot buffer on the western and southern property lines. Commissioner Price agreed. Commissioner Greene agreed. Commissioner Marcoplos agreed. Commissioner McKee said he thinks there needs to be further discussion, as he envisions the 50-foot buffer on the west and the south being all parking lots. He said he does not think a 100-foot buffer would greatly impinge on the building. Chair Rich said Craig Benedict has proposed a solution, but it is not what the County expects. She asked if Staff could work with the Developer on this issue. Commissioner Dorosin said it is important to consider the trade-offs, and if there could be less parking over, or a taller building at some point, etc. He said it is important to be as creative as possible. Chair Rich agreed. Commissioner Marcoplos agreed as well. He asked if there is some value to allow taller buildings on the north side/interstate side. Commissioner McKee expressed his appreciation to the Developer for revising the delivery traffic out on Davis Road. He said the CZ process involves working within the County's expectations and the Developer's needs. He said he would be willing to discuss the issue of building heights in order to maintain the buffers. Chair Rich said the next issue was land uses. Michael Harvey said he has a stylistic concern about the project, but not about any of the uses. He said he needs a head nod from the BOCC that the listed uses are acceptable. He said most of the uses are listed in Settlers Point. Commissioner Price asked if dry cleaning is really allowed, as they often need chemicals. Michael Harvey said chemicals do not have to be used, and it is up to the operator. He said he does not see a problem with it. The Board agreed by consensus about the list of uses. Commissioner Bedford referred to page 58 and the LED lightning, and the word "substantially". Frank Csapo said a different style of lighting is required in certain laboratory formats, and this wording is present to accommodate such unique situations. 38 Commissioner Bedford said the language could simply be amended to say LED lighting will be used except for unique situations where it is not possible to do so. Frank Csapo agreed. Commissioner Marcoplos said he would like more information on the Cates Creek natural area. He asked if County environmental staff could provide a summary of the issues. Frank Csapo said he is unsure what information can be provided, as the project has no impact on Cates Creek. He said storm water control is in place, along with rain gardens. Commissioner Marcoplos said he wants to hear from County staff in this issue, not the Developer. Michael Harvey said the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) staff sent a memorandum to the BOCC. He confirmed that no portion of the property contains any part of Cates Creek. Commissioner Greene suggested the following language for the LED lighting: "LED lighting will be used unless LED lighting is not compatible with the associated use." Frank Csapo agreed. Commissioner Greene referred to page 8 section 5, performance standards, and said she would prefer vehicles not be allowed to park in front of trash and recycling receptacles. Frank Csapo agreed. He returned to the LED lighting issue, and said he agrees with Commissioner Greene's wording, but would like to include language for successor technology in case LED lighting is replaced by something more efficient. Commissioner Greene agreed. Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the environmental impact. She said County staff says there will be no impact, but local environmental agencies say otherwise. She said she would like those reports to be taken into consideration and a full report be given to the BOCC. Frank Csapo said these agencies did not submit any professional reports, but rather just opinions. He said the Developer hired Kimley Horn who did a full analysis, and found no environmental concerns. He said there are plenty of professional reports to be reviewed on this issue. Commissioner Price said whether the Developer considers these agencies professional or not, she respects them and the work of the Eno River Association. She asked if County staff could listen to these agencies, and give a report back to the BOCC. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to consider discussing the revised Statement of Consistency and the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Atlas at the October 20th, 2020 BOCC Virtual Business Meeting. Roll call ensued. VOTE: UNANMIOUS 7. Reports NONE 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda None removed • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 39 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the consent agenda. Roll call ensued. VOTE: UNANMIOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the draft minutes from the September 1, 2020 Virtual Business Meeting as submitted by the Interim Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for three taxpayers with a total of three bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for fifteen taxpayers with a total of twenty-six bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to approve eleven untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for twelve bills for the 2020 tax year. e. Resolution Authorizing Exchange of Property for the Sheriff's Office The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, authorizing exchange of weapons for credit at P.F. Custom Guns and authorized the Chair to sign. f. Budget Amendment for the County Funding of 800 Hot Spots to Orange County Schools The Board approved a Budget Amendment in the amount of$120,000 to fund 800 Hots Spots for Orange County Schools (OCS) at a cost of$150 each. g. Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plan Amendment The Board approved a list of Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Amendments in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and submitted to the DCHC MPO for inclusion in its CTP Amendment. h. Advisory Boards and Commissions —Appointments The Board approved the Advisory Boards and Commissions appointments as reviewed and discussed during the September 10, 2020 Work Session. i. Approval of Board of Commissioners Meeting Calendar for Year 2021 The Board approved the meeting schedule for the Board of County Commissioners for calendar year 2021. j. Approval of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Travel Policies and Procedures The Board approved the County Commissioner Travel Policy to establish appropriate guidelines for travel and transportation required of elected officials conducting business for Orange County. k. Approve Contract for Building Commissioning Services of Northern Campus Protect The Board authorized the County Manager to execute a contract upon review by the County Attorney, between Orange County and Facilities Dynamics Engineering to perform building commissioning services for the Northern Campus construction project. I. Orange County Public Transportation Electric Bus and Charging Station Purchase 40 The Board approved an Agreement with GILLIG LLC of Hayward, California in the amount not- to-exceed $1,117,000 for the purchase and installation of a 40 foot electric bus and charging station; and authorized the County Manager to sign the agreement upon County Attorney review and to sign any change orders up to the Project Budget. m. Amendment to Orange County Board of Commissioners Advisory Board Policy Regarding Elected Officials The Board voted to amend the Orange County Advisory Board Policy so that elected government officials may not serve on advisory boards. 9. County Manager's Report Bonnie Hammersley said there is work session on October 8th, and highlighted the topics for discussion. 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. *Appointments NONE 12. Information Items ■ September 15, 2020 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List ■ Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis ■ Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections ■ Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under$100 ■ Memorandum - Racial Equity Progress Report ■ Memorandum - 2016 School Bond Projects 13. Closed Session NONE 14. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adjourn the meeting. VOTE: UNANMIOUS The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Penny Rich, Chair Allen Coleman Assistant Deputy Clerk Submitted for Approval by Gregory A. Wilder, Interim Clerk to the Board